Case 4108929/2021 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4108929/2021 Preliminary Hearing by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) on September 2021 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Charu Nandan Goel v Represented by Steve West Department for Work and Pensions — 2021
- Case reference
- 4108929/2021
- Decision date
- 18 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Macleod Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4108929/2021 Preliminary Hearing by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) on September 2021 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Charu Nandan Goel
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant’s employment as a Presenting Officer ended with effect from 25 September 2020. The dismissal letter dated 24 September 2020 said the termination took effect immediately, without notice and without payment in lieu of notice, and the claimant exercised the internal appeal process. The appeal was not upheld, and the claimant then contacted ACAS on 16 February 2021 before presenting his tribunal claim on 2 April 2021.
Applying section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the “reasonably practicable” test, with reference to Porter v Bandridge Ltd, Palmer & Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council, Trevelyans (Birmingham) Ltd v Norton, Cambridge and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust v Crouchman, Times Newspapers Ltd v O’Regan, Alliance & Leicester plc v Kidd and Friend v Institution of Professional Managers and Specialists, the tribunal held that the three-month deadline expired on 24 December 2020. It found that the claim was presented out of time and that the claimant had not shown that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within the statutory period.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had received incorrect advice from his PCS trade union representative that he should await the outcome of the internal appeal before going to the tribunal, but held that he was bound by that advice and that it did not excuse lateness. It found no evidence that the respondent told him he had to wait, rejected the suggestion that the internal disciplinary and appeal processes made the claim out of time, and held that any information emerging during the appeal only fortified the claimant’s existing view that his dismissal was unfair. It also rejected a medical explanation for delay. The tribunal therefore held that it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the unfair dismissal, notice pay, holiday pay and arrears-of-pay claims as time-barred.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed as time-barred; tribunal lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay complaint dismissed as time-barred; tribunal lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay complaint dismissed as time-barred; tribunal lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Arrears-of-pay complaint dismissed as time-barred; tribunal lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- reasonably practicable
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Palmer & Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Trevelyans (Birmingham) Ltd v Norton
- Cambridge and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust v Crouchman
- Times Newspapers Ltd v O'Regan
- Alliance & Leicester plc v Kidd
- Friend v Institution of Professional Managers and Specialists
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.